THE EFFECT OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE EXPERIENCES ON THE EXPECTANCY OF SUCCESS AND PERFORMANCE OF EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED FOURTH AND FIFTH GRADE BOYS By TOM 3ALL0WE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1973 To my wife, Debbie, and my daughter, Jessie ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the many individuals who have cooperated and given support for this study; for without the cooperation of many principals and teachers in Alachua County this report would not have been possible. I am deeply indebted to my advisor and friend, Dr. Bob Algozzine, for his professional guidance and assistance throughout the doctoral program and for serving as chairman of my dissertation committee. His timely suggestions and comments were of unequalled importance to the completion of this study and to the depth of my total program. I am also very grateful for the help and advice of Drs. Rex Schmid, William Ware, Cecil Mercer, Gordon Greenwood, and Jim Whorton who served on my committee. I am also deeply grateful to my personal friend and classmate, Mike Marlowe, for collection of data for the study. Mike was also a source of continual encouragement throughout my entire academic program. A sincere appreciation is expressed to the personal friends, staff members, and family who supported and assisted whenever needed. Finally, I wish to express a special note of appreciation to my loving and thoughtful wife, Deobie. She has been the most important figure behind any endeavor of mine since we were married, and without ^er this study would never have begun. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vi ABSTRACT vi i CHAPTER ! INTRODUCTION ..... 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Questions Under Investigation . 3 Rationale 3 Definition of Terms 4 Hypotheses 5 Delimitations ... 5 Limitations 6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . 8 Emotionally Handicapped 8 Expectancy , 11 CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 24 Subjects 24 Instrumentation 26 Procedures 28 Analysis and Design 29 CHAPTER IV RESULTS, DISCUSSION, AND LIMITATIONS . . 32 Correlation Results ....... 33 Results of T-Tests 33 Discussion ............. 36 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS , 39 Purpose ............... 43 Procedures ..... 43 Conclusions ^^ , A D PEivDIX A 50 APPENDIX 3 . . . . . 52 i v Page APPENDIX C 53 APPENDIX D 54 APPENDIX E 56 REFERENCES 57 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 61 LIST OF TABLES Table Pag e 1 Demographic Data for Subjects ^5 2 Design for T-Test Comparison of Expectancy Means Across Success and Failure Conditions 30 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Expectancy and Performance Scores of Success arid Failure Groups VI Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EFFECT OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE EXPERIENCES ON THE EXPECTANCY OF SUCCESS AND PERFORMANCE OF EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED FOURTH AND FIFTH GRADE BOYS By Tom Ball owe August 1978 Chairman: Bob Algozzine, Ph.D. Major Department: Special Education In recent years, a considerable number of research studies have investigated the effects of success and failure on the expectancy levels of the EMR child. These studies have yielded results which have led to effective teaching strategies for the mildly retarded. While research has shown that retarded children's expectancies and performances are differentially affected by success and failure exper- iences, no suc.n systematic efforts have been devoted to this pheonmenon within an EH croup of children. The study was designed to investigate the extent to which EH children's expectancies and performances could be altered by success or failure induced experiences. Forty-eight fourth and fifth grade EH boys were randomly assigned to either a success or failure condition during five trials of a guessing task. Immediately following the initial task, all children were asked to estimate their expectancy of success on a novel learning task. For this second activity, all children received a progressive matrix worksheet with ten problems which required adding and/or sub- tracting solutions. The worksheet was pretested with 95 fourth and vii fifth graders with a median score of six. It was hypothesized that those children who were in the success condition would have higher expectancies and actual performance scores than the children in the failure condition. Safeguards were inacted to assure that each condi- tion was accurately perceived by the student as success and failure. It was further hypothesized that the mean expectancy levels for each group would be correlated to respective performance means. Expectancy was shown to have little correlation to subsequent performance in success or failure conditions. Placement in a success or failure condition did not yield significantly different expectancy estimates; however, a significant difference in performance levels was shown. It was concluded that experimentally induced success or failure has a differential effect on performance of EH boys. vm CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is common for some children to experience difficulties in school. When such difficulties are thought to be the result of the emotional problems of the child, that child is often referred to as emotionally handicapped (EH). The emotionally handicapped child has special needs which are usually addressed in a special classroom environment (O'Neal! & Sibbison, 1975). One of the primary characteristics of many EH children is achievement at a level below that which would be expected by intellectual estimates of their abilities (Kelly, Bullock, & Dykes, 1974); this poor academic achievement cannot be attributed to intellectual, sensory, or physical deficits. The EH child experiences failure as a result of his problem behaviors. In personal as well as academic settings, failure is one variable which affects one's overall performance as well as expectancy for success (Jones, 1977). Expectancy can be described as the level of expected performance one has for a task. Most researchers have chosen to examine expectancy levels for persons under two experimental conditions: success and failure (Feather, 1968; Jones, 1977; Marks, 1951). Success generally leads to an increase in expectancy of success; while failure generally leads to a decrease in expectancy of success. Equally important are the personal attributions one places on success or failure; common attributions are (1) ability, (2) effort, (3) task difficulty, and (4) luck (Frieze & Weiner, 1971; i Heider, 1958). Success attributed to luck does not always lead to an increase in expectancy. When success or failure are seen as the result of ability, the greatest expectancy changes usually occur. Expectancies with exceptional children have been shown to fluctuate with success and failure (Robbins & Harway, 1977; Shuster & Gruen, 1971). The orientation or striving for success characteristically found in many normal children, is often replaced in exceptional children by a striving to avoid failure (Cromwell, 1963; Zigler, 1962). It has been suggested that inordinate amounts of failure may have a detrimental effect on expec- tancy of success and thereby lead to this tendency to avoiding failure. The expectancy research with retarded children has demonstrated that performance as well as expectancy may be altered by success and failure experiences (Mercer & Snell, 1977). Emotionally handicapped children experience failure in school (Shea, 1978); they also exhibit many behaviors associated with learning disabled and mentally retarded children (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977; Neisworth & Greer, 1975). While expectancy research with retarded children has been extensive (Mercer & Snell, 1977), little has been completed with EH or learning disabled youngsters. It would seem appropriate, then, to investigate the effects of success and failure experiences within these other groups of exceptional children utilizing methods and procedures similar to those developed for studies of mentally retarded children. Statement of the Problem While research has shown that retarded children's expectancies and performances are differentially affected by success and failure experiences, no such systematic efforts have been devoted to this phenomenon within an EH group of children. This study was designed to investigate the extent to which EH children's expectancies and performances could be altered by success or failure induced experiences. Questions Under Investigation In order to address this problem, the following questions were of interest: 1. What are the effects of success and failure on the expectancies and actual performances within a group of EH fourth and fifth grade boys? 2. What is the relationship between the expectancies and the levels of performance within a group of EH fourth and fifth grade boys? This study was designed to answer these questions. Rationale Exceptional children are likely to have experienced many failures in school (O'Neal! & Sibbison, 1975; Shea, 1978; Smith & Neisworth, 1976). The effects of failure experiences have been shown to influence expectancies as well as subsequent performances in a variety of settings (Jones, 1977; Mercer & Snel 1 , 1977). Research has demonstrated that mentally retarded cnildren are more prone to a failure orientation than to one of success and that this orientation can be altered (Cromwell, 1963; Mercer & Snel 1 , 1977; Zigler, 1962). The expectancies and performance levels of retarded children have also been affected by experimental procedures (Levy, 1 974; Mercer h. Snel 1 , 1977; Robinson & Robinson, 1973; Rosen, Diggory & Werlinsky, 1966). While many of the behavioral characteristics of EH and mentally retarded children overlap (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977; Neisworth & Greer, 1975), no research implication exists with regard to the effects of success and failure experiences. If it can be demonstrated that expectancies and performance levels can be influenced within a group of EH children, then it may also be possible to develop teaching techniques similar to those utilized with retarded children (Mercer & Snell, 1977), to improve the instruction of emotionally handicapped children as well . Definition of Terms Emotionally Handicapped The emotionally handicapped student is the student who, after receiv- ing supportive assistance and counseling services available to all students, still exhibits persistent and consistent severe behavioral disabilities which consequently disrupt his/her own learning process. This is a student whose inability to achieve adequate progress or satisfactory interpersonal relationships cannot be attributed to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits. Expectancy Refers to an individual's anticipated level of future performance. The score that a child estimates he will obtain on a subsequent task. Failure Refers to the treatment in which the child is told that he did not do well at estimating the number of cards that he would guess correctly. Progressive Matrix Score Refers to the number of correct and incorrect responses obtained by the child on the progressive matrix sheet. A score of seven implies that seven were correct of the ten possible answers. Success Refers to the treatment in which the child is told that he did well at estimating the number of cards that he would guess correctly. Hypotheses This study was designed to investigate two questions related to the effects of failure or success on EH children's expectancy of success and performance on a novel task. In order to test the relationship between these variables, the following null hypotheses were included: Hypothesis 1 . There will be no relationship between expectancy levels obtained from students who received failure feedback on the pre- liminary guessing task, and their actual performance levels on the prog- ressive matrix worksheet. Hypothesis 2 . There will be no relationship between expectancy levels obtained from students who received success feedback on the pre- liminary guessing task, and their actual performance levels on the progressive matrix worksheet. Hypothesis 3 . There will be no difference between mean scores of success and failure groups as measured by their progressive matrix score. Hypothesis 4 . There will be no difference between the mean scores of success and failure groups as measured by their verbal reports of expectancy of success for the progressive matrix worksheet. Del imitations The scope of the study was confined to the following factors: 1. Only boys classified and being served in programs for the emotionally handicapped were included; by definition, then, no retarded, learning disabled, or normal children were studied. 2. Only boys attending resource room programs in Alachua County, Florida, were studied. No severely disturbed children (i.e., autistic or schizophrenic) were included in the sample. 3. Only children attending elementary schools were included; no boys in middle or high schools participated in the study. Limit ations In view of the fact that literature pertaining to the effects of success and failure for EH children was not available, any endeavor to investigate the concepts of expectancy and performance with regard to them was based on methods and procedures used with other populations. The results, however, only show descriptive data concerning the reactions within this specific population and should not imply conclusions for others. The general izability of the results will be limited for several reasons: 1. The expectancy estimates may have been biased because students might favor marking on smiling faces (Appendix B) instead of frowning faces. The worksheet was sensitive to perceived success and failure of students. 2. The results may be limited due to the unestablished reliability of the expectancy measures. Tne coefficient for the performance matrix is reported in the results. A validity check was made for expectancy estimates. 3. The learning task and setting may not be representative of those encountered in a typical school classroom. Equally, no general- ization can be made as to how girls of children of other categories of exceptionality may respond. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The literature reviewed in this chapter has been divided into two major sections. The first section describes the emotionally handicapped child. The second section discusses expectancy; factors which affect expectancy levels within various populations have been presented. Emotionally Handicapped Exceptional children exhibit a wide variety of characteristics. Hallahan and Kauffman (1978) have included numerous psychological, educational, and behavioral characteristics which are not always present in only one classification of child. In their discussion of categories of children served by special education, the emotionally disturbed child is presented as exhibiting varied behaviors. Emotionally handicapped (EH) is a term chosen by the State of Florida to replace the more common term emotionally disturbed. Reinert (1975) discussed various conventional definitions for emotional dis- turbance; he suggested that the negative aspects of many definitions in use across the country illustrate the need for a better term. It is likely that these negative connotations associated with the word "disturbed" have influenced Florida's adoption of the term "handicapped." Prevalence figures of emotionally handicapped children have been estimated by prominent educations from 1% to 22?^ (Bower, 1960; Kirk, 1972) The United States Office of Education, Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped, has estimated that 2% of public school children are emotionally disturbed. Florida currently provides services to approxi- mately 2% of its school population as emotionally handicapped. The type of service delivery for emotionally handicapped children in the schools is usually chosen according to the severity of the handicap. O'Neall and Sibbison (1975) report that the most common type of service for these children is to provide a resource room teacher; children served in a resource room will remain in the regular classroom for a majority of the school day. These authors also state that self contained special classrooms serve 25% and that about 12% of the emo- tionally handicapped children are served by alternative schools. These last two models are typically for children considered to be more severe. The definition of an emotionally handicapped student used for the present study has been adopted by Florida (see definitions in Chapter I); it states that a student can be considered as emotionally handicapped if he has received supportive educational services available to all students and still exhibits persistent and consistent severe to ^/ery severe behavioral disabilities that interfere in his learning process. A child is considered for placement and service if his inability to per- form academically or to establish satisfactory interpersonal relation- ships cannot be attributed to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits. Several inclusion factors state that the school must have documented evidence of attempted educational programming, length and severity of the problem, disruption of academic progress, and evidence to exclude a primary physical, sensory, or intellectual deficit (Florida Department of Education, 1977). Some general characteristics present in the state guidelines (Florida Department of Education, 1977) are very similar to components of the definition of emotional disturbance presented by Bower and Lambert (1971): (a) an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; (b) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; (c) a general mood of unhappiness or depression; (d) a tendency to develop physical symptoms, pain, or fears associated with personal or school problems; (e) an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers or teacher; and (f) a variety of excessive behavior ranging from hyperactive and aggressive responses to severe depression and with- drawal. Similar characteristics are included in discussions of disturbed children (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1973; Kauffman, 1977; Kirk, 1972; Reinert, 1976). The state guidelines also list 24 specific characteristics which assist teachers in identifying the emotionally handicapped child. These characteristics range from immature behavior to hyperactive behavior. Numerous behavior rating scales used by teachers include behaviors such as bizarre speech, defiance, abnormal sexual interest, and disruptive- ness. The . ist of specific characteristics that are suggestive of emotional disturbance include behaviors that others may consider dis- turbing or bothersome (Algozzine, 1977). This bothersome behavior often interferes with task relevant stimuli and therefore leads to failure on academic measures. These same behaviors may also result in failure to establish relationships; the EH child is likely to experience rejection, harassment, and hostility from his peers (O'Connor, 10 1969). Bullock and Brown (1972) discussed related factors which may effect the incidence statistics for EH students; they found that 73% of the children being served in ED programs in Florida were boys. Equally a large majority of the emotionally disturbed children they studied were academically achieving below grade level. The EH child exhibits many varied behaviors which can interfere with his learning process. In view of the fact that the EH child has no primary intellectual problem, it is fair to assume that learning can take place if the child is providing effort towards completion of the work. Because the EH child has experienced considerable failure, it is also reasonable to assume that success at a task would be more facilitative to subsequent learning than more failure. Learning situations which are perceived as successful by EH children may lead to increased effort and/or increased performance. Expectancy Expectancy is defined by Rotter as "the probability held by the individual that a particular reinforcement will occur as a function of a specific behavior on his part in a specific situation or situations. Expectancy is independent of the value or importance of the reinforce- ment" (1954, p. 107). Expectancy is a term used to describe the degree to which the individual believes that he is the controlling agent of change in his own behavior. Rotter suggests that expectancy is modi- fiable by learning and experience. Although Rotter coined the term "expectancy," Feather has completed considerable research on the topic (Feather, 1965; Feather & Saville, 11 1967; Feather & Simon, 1971; Feather & Simon, 1973). His expectancy estimates were obtained mainly by a self report data given by subjects either just prior to a task or after practice trials preceding the task. Subjects were induced to high or low expectations of success by providing anagrams of varying difficulty. When one is attempting a task in which he has experience, his past success or failure at the task will have a major effect on expectancy (Feather, 1968, Jones, 1977). For example, Feather (1968) gave college students 15 anagrams to solve. Half of the students received anagrams where the first five solutions were easy and the other half received anagrams where the first five solutions were insoluble. For all stu- dents the last ten anagrams were of the same difficulty level. Students were asked to estimate their chances of solving each anagram just prior to attempting it. For those students who received initial anagrams of low difficulty, their expectancy of success increased each time until they reached the last ten anagrams. When confronted with the seemingly more difficult anagrams, the expectancy of success slowly decreased. For students who received difficult initial anagrams, their expectancy of success was initially low but gradually improved as the relatively easier anagrams appeared. If a task is novel, the expectancy is primarily determined by an individual's generalized expectancy (Jones, 1977); this generalized expectancy is considered to be a relatively stable global assessment of one's chances of success in everyday situations (Feather, 1965; McCaughan, 1975; Rotter, 1966). When an individual is confronted with 12 a novel task, one variable which can effect expectancy level is information about the performance of various reference groups. For example, if a student is told that other people like him usually score 70% on a test, then that student's expectancy would generally approximate the 70% level. Studies by Chapman and Volkman (1939) and Festinger (1942) showed that college students rated their expectancy of success as just above the performance of a homogeneous reference group. Jones (1977) sum- marizes the effects of experience on expectancy by suggesting that an individual is responsive to his past experiences with a familiar task or to information about the performance of others at a novel task. Rotter (1954) suggested that expectancies operated independently of reinforcement values. Jessor and Readio (1957) studied the effect of different levels of reinforcement on expectancy levels of 94 fourth graders. Students threw darts over a screen at a hidden target. The subjects were divided into three groups, with each group receiving one, two, or three M&Ms for hitting the target. Success was manipulated so that students were successful either three or ten times in 20 tosses. Just before throwing the 21st dart all students were asked to estimate their chances of hitting the target. In support of Rotter's earlier claim, no effect on expectancy resulted from a variation in the value of the reinforcer; expectancy levels were effected by the objective probability of success. For example, expectancy levels for those students who had ten hits were higher than those students who had only three successful hits. Performance on a task seems to have a direct effect on subsequent estimates of performance on the same task. 13 Marks (1951) showed ten sets of 10 cards to 120 fifth and sixth graders. An equal number of high and low socioeconomic status (SES) boys and girls were chosen. The subjects were to guess whether each card was a picture card or not; they were told the objective proba- bility of picking a face card for each set of cards. Expectancy estimates were not affected by SES, intelligence, or sex differences, however, estimates fluctuated uniformly with the objective probability assigned to the trial. Similar results have been demonstrated by Jessor and Readio (1957). Weiner (1974) suggested that success attributed to luck may actually lead to a decrease in expectancy; he also pointed out that success attributed to ability often increased expectancy and performance more than success attributed to good luck. Several studies have shown that college students tend to assume personal responsibility for success and view it as caused by some ability factor (Feather & Simon, 1971; Frieze & Weiner, 1971). These same authors also found that the primary variable which effects whether one attributes success to ability or luck is the initial level of expectancy. For those whose initial expectancy is high and success occurs, there seems to be an attribution to ability and for those with low initial expectancy estimates the attribution given to success is luck. Locke (1967) found that success produced satisfaction and a positive valence towards the task regardless of whether expected or unexpected. Griffith (1977) studied the effects of success performance with 44 college students. When students were given success at preliminary ana- grams they were described as having feelings of control over the outcomes 14 of following anagrams. This control led to higher expectancies; these reported feelings of control suggest that success might lead to an internal locus of control viewpoint, at least for that task. The occurrence and frequency of success have been shown to initiate a rise in expectancy and performance for college and elementary-age students. When success is attributed to one's ability, the magnitude of the increase is maximal. For those individuals who hold high initial expectancies and then perceive success, an attribution to personal ability is linked with the success. If the EH child holds a high initial expectancy and experiences success, it is likely that he will attribute the success to his own ability and that it will influence subsequent expectancies and performances. If the EH child holds a low initial expectancy and experiences success, it is likely that he will attribute that success to luck; success attributed to luck may have different effects than that attributed to ability. Failure and Expectancy Failure at a task was mentioned as leading to tendencies for lower expectancies for success on that task (Feather, 1968; Locke, 1967). Sears (1940) found that failure for college students at a task led to variability in their expectancy of success on similar tasks. Feather and Saville (1967) have investigated the question of how much failure affected expectations. Subjects were grouped into eight different success or failure conditions on three practice anagrams. Probability estimates or expectancy of success decreased after failure; predominant failure produced more change in expectancies than predominant success. 15 Failure also led to a dislike for the task. Locke (1967) found that a valence, like or dislike, towards a task was not affected by deviation from initial expectancy as much as from success or failure experienced. Jones (1977) has mentioned that failure does not always lead to lower expectancies. The four attributions mentioned for success (i.e., ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck) will also vary the effects of failure. Feather and Simon (1971) asked 85 high school boys to rate the degree for which they considered four factors were responsible for task outcome. After performing on a ten item anagram task with manipulated failure, subjects were asked to rank the factors of effort, ability, task difficulty, or luck as causes of the performance outcomes. For those subjects who had initially low expectancies of success, attributions were more to lack of ability. When subjects attributed poor performance to lack of ability, expectancy and performance tended to decrease. When boys whose initial expectancy was high received failure there was a tendency to attribute this to specific factors like bad luck or lack of effort. These attributions had only minimal effects on subsequent expectancies and performances. Failure has been shown to have a depressing effect on expectancy and performance levels in most instances. Persons receiving excessive amounts of failure also tended to avoid and foster a dislike for the task. For individuals whose initial expectancies are low, failure leads to an attribution of personal inability. Failure is least apt to lower one's expectancies if it is perceived as based on luck; this allows the person to avoid taking the blame or responsibility for the failure. If the EH child holds a high expectancy for success and experiences failure, he 16 likely attribute the failure to luck and its effects should be minimized. If he holds a low initial expectancy and experiences failure, it is likely that the failure will be attributed to lack of ability. Success and Failure with Exceptional Children Success and failure can have varying effects on expectancies of exceptional children. Subjects of the previously mentioned studies were students in college or the public schools who could be described as individuals striving towards success. Exceptional children such as the educable mentally retarded (EMR) or physically handicapped have been described as striving to avoid failure. Cromwell (1963) and Zigler (1962) affirmed that retarded individuals have a higher expectancy for failure than do normal individuals. This negative orientation led to problem solving approaches that were directed to avoid failure rather than to achieve success. Cromwell also suggested that this was a result of limited cognitive abilities which have caused the child to have a history of failure experiences. Rosen, Diggory, and Werlinsky (1966) investi- gated the expectancy levels of 11 institutionalized adolescents. The subjects were matched on sex (i.e., male), intellectual quotient (IQ), and chronological age (CA). Performance of the two groups was measured across two conditions on a nut and bolt assembly task. The institutional- ized group was more confident of ultimate success when predicting per- formance. This finding suggests that the insitutionalized adolescent experiences less failure and is therefore more optimistic and success oriented (Rosen, Diggory, & Werlinsky, 1966). Cromwell (1963) has reported that the amount of failure one receives is not as critical a variable as mental age (MA). The individual with 17 limited intelligence has been described as hedonistic which leads to approaching tasks which have been associated with pleasurable events and avoiding tasks associated with unpleasant events. Zigler (1967) and McMillan (1969) utilized a task interruption paradigm to test the success striving (SS) versus failure avoiding (FA) motivational dimen- sion in retarded and normal individuals. The retarded groups in these studies indicated that regardless of whether a completed task or an interrupted task was selected for resumption, they overwhelmingly blamed themselves for the incompletion of the task. This is an example of the retarded child's internalization of responsibility for failure. This phenomena was not seen in the normal groups of either study. Sub- jects who were matched on IQ or MA showed no difference in their attri- bution for blame. Additional support for the idea that expectancy of success may be related to MA instead of the number of years of failure was reported by Shuster and Gruen (1971). They investigated (a) whether manipulations of success and failure differentially affect the performance predictions of retarded and non-retarded children in a constant manner, and (b) whether experimentally induced success and failure experiences on a task have any consistent effects on the expectancy of success of children. Twenty-four mildly retarded and 48 non-retarded children were asked to define 30 words. Randomly selected members of each group were given 15 easy words followed by 15 difficult words. This simulated success followed by failure (S-F). The others received the difficult words first followed by the easy words. Expectancy estimates of success were obtained from all students before the 6th, 11th, 16th, II 21st, and 26th words. The expectancies of the MA equivalent groups were not significantly different. It is not justifiable to assume that all retarded children have had a history of failure without examining their past histories. The effect of the experimental manipulation over trials supported the idea that success leads to a raising of expectancy while failure experiences lead to a lowering of expectancies; however, that attribution associated with the experience also has relevance (Feather & Saville, 1967; Feather & Simon, 1971). The (F-S) group was more variable in their predictions of success than those in the (S-F) group. This was presumed due to the intensity felt by receiving 15 straight failures but may have been due to an attribution to luck versus ability in the two groups. Cromwell and Moss (1959) chose to investigate whether retarded individuals paid attention to the reward value of a task in addition to the success or failure of the task. Their institutionalized retardates had a mean IQ of 58. Subjects were asked to predict whether cards pre- sented face down were yellow or black. Each person guessed each card in a deck of 80 cards three times. No reward was given for the first time, a 25<£ reward was possible the second time, and a 5c reward was possible the last time; these conditions were counterbalanced for order. No significant differences were found between the two reward groups, however, both groups made significantly more positive guesses than would have been expected by chance. Piper (1970) studied the same question and found that a positive value associated with an event does cause that event to be predicted more often by male EMR students and the reverse is also true with the value is negative. These results are contrasted with Jessor 19 and Readio's (1957) finding that normal children's expectancies are unchanged by reinforcement value. The studies which have reviewed success and failure and its results in expectancy change and performance with mentally retarded children have revealed some dissenting information. First, Cromwell (1963) and Zigler (1962) maintained that failure avoidance is the orientation for the retarded person. This is reportedly a function of their extensive his- tory of past failure. Rosen, Diggory, and Werlinsky (1966) utilized this theory and suggested that institutionalized mildly retarded indiv- iduals received less failure than noninstitutionalized counterparts and therefore had higher expectancies of success. Shuster and Gruen (1971) and McMillan (1969) espoused the idea that reaction of the mildly retarded individuals towards success is a function of mental age and not simply a resultant of a past history of failure. Shuster and Gruen also demon- strated that programized success experiences can effect expectancies of success and performance in the mildly retarded. A second area of conflicting information relates to the effects of reinforcement on expectations. Cromwell and Moss (1959) found that the reward value associated with the task was not instrumental in changing expectancies of mentally retarded individuals while Piper (1970) found contradictory results. Levy (1974) used knowledge of results to assist in performance gains for the mildly retarded; knowledge of success coupled with reinforcement was instrumental in the performance gains for the subjects. Unfortunately very few of the investigators have given knowledge of results along with social reinforcement in their studies. 20 Shuster and Gruen (1971) did not find a significant relationship between experimentally induced success and failure in mildly retarded and normal children in terms of their expectancies of success. This is pos- sible for two reasons: (1) No check was made to determine if induced failure and success were actually perceived as such by the subjects, and (2) no precautions were taken to ensure that expectancy estimates given were not simply responses of wishful thinking rather than an estimate of actual predicted performance. The important factor to garner from the studies of the success and failure strivings of the mildly retarded is that orientation towards striving for success and higher expectancies of success are possible by utilizing success experiences, knowledge of results, and appropriate reinforcement (Mercer & Snell, 1977). Research on expectancies in the mildly retarded child is present in abundance, while similar studies with other exceptional populations are sparse. Harway (1962) studied the goal setting behavior of physically handicapped children and normal children who were matched on age, IQ, sex, and grade. She found that the 80 physically handicapped children tended to be more inconsistent and varied in responses to success and failure, while the 40 normal children showed expected changes in goal setting as a result of success and failure. The physically handicapped group would set unrealistically high goals even after repeated failure. Once again wishful thinking may have played a part in the levels of aspiration and suggest a difference from actual expectancy of success. Equally, the attributions associated with the success and failure are important to consider. 21 A similar study with learning disabled children in which goal setting and levels of aspiration were investigated has been completed (Robbins & Harway, 1977). Seventy-eight boys from the ages of 8-11 years were used. An equal number of experimental and control children were chosen after matching on three standardized test variables. The learning disabled children showed greater variability in their goal setting than the control group. The control group was also more system- atic in their reactions to previous performance than the learning dis- abled children. Gewirtz (1960) found that "bright" first and second grade high needs achievers actually had preference for harder problems. This is quite a contrast from the avoidance behavior noted in retarded children. It is interesting to note that no "emotionally disturbed or unwilling students" were among the 100 subjects. There is a dearth of literature surrounding the expectancies of emotionally handicapped children. A common practice for teachers of emotionally handicapped children is to attempt to shield or mask failure for the child. While this may be a reasonable viewpoint, no systematic investigation of the effects of failure or success on subsequent per- formance or expectancy of performance has been completed. This study was designed to investigate the effects of success and failure within a group of EH boys. To accomplish this, the procedures of other expectancy studies were utilized and improved upon to some extent. The expectancy levels obtained by most of the previously mentioned investigators were self report in nature and done after experimentally 22 induced success or failure. One possible reason for conflicting results may be that the individuals did not perceive the conditions as intended. For instance, intended failure might be perceived as success simply because the child is not attempting to reach a MQry high level of attain- ment. Crandall (1963) devised a method for measuring whether knowledge of results and intended success or failure is comprehended by the individual Crandall found that 26 of 30 students in the success condition reflected success while 29 of 30- students in the failure condition reflected failure. Crandall 's method seemed useful as a manipulation check within the context of this study. Many of the previous studies have asked subjects to state expec- tancies for various tasks and may have obtained what the child hoped to get right. This may have been different from what was expected to be right; this wishful thinking factor has been a much criticized element of expectancy research (Jones, 1977; Marks, 1951). With controls on wishful thinking and validation of success and failure perceptions, this study was expected to begin to answer the question of how success and failure effect expectancies and performances of elementary-aged EH boys. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Chapter III presents the methods and procedures of the study. This includes a description of the subjects, instrumentation, procedures for collection of data, and the design for the study. Subjects A sample of EH boys was selected from children enrolled in the Alachua County school system. A list of students from the fourth and fifth grades was obtained. The names of all male subjects who were receiving resource room exceptional services for emotionally handi- capped children were identified. Fifty of these boys were randomly chosen and subsequently assigned to either a success or a failure con- dition. One subject in the success condition was unable to supply parental permission to participate in the study; one student in the failure condition failed to perceive his performance as failure. These two children were not included in subsequent analysis. The demographic data for the 48 children who participated in the study are posted in Table 1. It should be noted that initial expectancies for the boys were high; that is, 74% of the children thought they would do approximately 3 of 10 correctly prior to performing any tasks. While math achievement scores and initial expectancy estimates for the two groups did not differ, the means for perceived success (x=3.8) or failure (x=3.2) were significantly (t=14.66, p. < .05) different. This 23 25 I— -C QJ <C +-> > i— i n3 CD ii ii Ix lx Ix ix 25 suggests that the experimental manipulation was effective in influencing perceived level of success. The success group perceived themselves as rating a high performance on the first task, while the failure group perceived a much lower rating (i.e., approximately 3) as appropriate. Chi-square analyses of the race and demographic variables were performed to determine if they were evenly distributed across treatment groups. An analysis of the results suggested that the success and failure groups were composed of similar children with regard to those variables mentioned, Instrumentation The students were asked to complete two tasks. The first involved the use of playing cards. The aces and deuces were taken from two decks of standard size, plastic coated, playing cards. These 16 cards were shuffled in the presence of the child and the top ten cards were placed face down in a line in front of him. The child was then asked to guess whether each card was an ace or a deuce (see answer sheet in Appendix A). After the child's ten responses, the examiner gave feedback according to a predetermined schedule. Five similar trials were administered, with the cards being shuffled before each trial. A worksheet was developed to record the students' expectancy estimates and to provide knowledge of results (see Appendix B). This worksheet was patterned after one used by Crandall (1963); it was deisgned to assess whether children perceived success or failure after • being placed into those experimental conditions. Children marked on the form indicating how well they thought they would do prior to begin- ning and also indicated how well they thought they actually did after five 27 trials on the first task. This was matched with the actual treatment to see if the child perceived his performance according to the condition in which he was placed. This form also allowed the examiner to graphically show the knowledge of results on the two tasks. A pilot study with ten fourth and fifth grade EH children was com- pleted to determine if the methodology for presentation of success and failure was perceived appropriately. Five students who received experi- mentally induced failure reflected failure on the response sheet; the five students who received experimentally induced success all reflected success on the response sheet. For the second task, each child was asked to complete a progressive matrix worksheet (see Appendix C) which contained ten items; he used a number two pencil to complete it. The worksheet was pretested with 95 fourth and fifth grade boys (47 fourth graders and 48 fifth graders) and the median score was six correct. The pilot children were in regular classrooms and all were doing work which would merit passing to the next grade in fall. An internal consistency estimate (i.e., coefficient alpha) of .88 for the reliability of the matrix worksheet was obtained. The individual chosen to administer the tasks to the children was a male graduate student who had five years of experience working with emotionally handicapped students. He was not told the rationale for the study; however, he was told that every child reacts differently and that no trend in results was predicted. The examiner was cautioned to refrain from talking with the child during the data collection and to say only what was suggested in the directions (see Appendix A); observation of the examiner on five different occasions suggested that he had followed these directions. 28 Grade equivalents in math achievement were available as a part of the end of year assessment procedure. The Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) was the instrument used to obtain the grade equivalents. The test-retest coefficients for raw scores for fifth graders on the math subtest was .73 (Dunn & Markwardt, 1970). Scores reported in Table 1 are grade equivalents. Procedures The study was conducted during the last two weeks of May and the first two weeks of June, 1978. The graduate student received two hours of training and practice prior to administering the tasks. He notified teachers of the selected students that the evaluation would take 20-30 minutes. Parental permission forms were signed for all but one child. A request for a date and time was negotiated. Teachers and students were told that participation would involve two brief activities that would take about half an hour. Students were also told that a treat would be given for completion of the two tasks. The graduate student took each boy to a quiet room and attempted to establish rapport with him; after a couple of minutes, the intro- ductory paragraph was read to him. The directions and introductory paragraph were the same for all participants (see Appendix A). Before the student saw any of the testing materials, the expectancy worksheet was shown to him and he was read the introductory paragraph. He was then asked to mark an expectancy estimate for the upcoming task (see Appendix B). After the cards were shown to him, he was asked to estimate how many of the cards he would guess correctly. The student 29 then told the examiner his guess for each card. The examiner recorded the responses and gave the student feedback en the worksheet at a pre- determined level. Scores given to the students varied according to the criterion described on the failure or success response sheet (see Appen- dix C). A child who was in the success group was told that his guess was close or exactly right. Individuals in the failure group were told that their guesses were wrong or not close. Each student was given five trials at guessing the cards; each time, he was asked to guess how many he would get right before the guessing began. Similar feedback (i.e., either success or failure) was given after each trial. After the fifth trial was completed and feedback given, the child was then asked to mark on a separate worksheet indicating how well he thought he had actually done. His previous expectancy estimate was not visible at that time. The student was given the directions and introduction to tne second task before the new materials were presented. Students were asked to guess how many of the ten new items they would get right. All students received feedback which reflected success. This was to insure that those who had failed on the first section would receive some success and to insure that the experience of participating was not a negative one. Students were given a small bag of peanuts to eat while the examiner scored the second task. Performance scores and subjective probability of success estimates were recorded for later analysis. Analysis and Design The design for the study included two treatment conditions; with 25 students randomly assigned to success and failure respectively. One 30 student assigned to the success group did not return a completed permis- sion slip. One student in the failure group did not accurately perceive the experimentally induced failure and was dropped from analysis. The number of students in each condition was 24; all subsequent analyses were completed with this group of boys. The dependent measures within each experimental group were the expectancy and performance levels related to the progressive matrix worksheet. A representation of this design is presented in Table 2. To test the significance of the relationship between expectancy levels and performance levels for the success group, a correlation coefficient was calculated. It has provided a check for Hypothesis 1 (see page 5) . To test the significance of the relationship between expectancy levels and performance levels for the failure group, a correlation coefficient was calculated. It has provided a check for Hypothesis 2 (see page 5). To test the significance of the difference between expectancy levels for the experimental groups, a t-test was performed. It has compared the reported mean expectancy level for success and failure groups and has conducted a test for Hypothesis 3 (see page 5). To test the significance of the difference between performance levels for the experimental group, a t-test was performed. It has compared the mean performance level for success and failure groups and has constituted a test for Hypothesis 4 (see page 5). 31 Table 2 represents the design used for comparison of the expectancy means of the two groups by use of a t-test. The sane design is used to compare performance means for the two groups. Table 2 Design for T-Test Comparison of Expectancy Means Across Success and Failure Conditions Expectancy Ssl Yil Ss2 Y12 Ss3 Y13 SUCCESS Ss22 Y122 Ss23 Y123 Ss24 Y124 FAILURE Ss25 Y225 Ss26 Y226 Ss27 Y227 Ss46 Y246 Ss47 Y247 Ss48 Y248 *This design was used in identical fashion to examine per- formance means across success and failure conditions. CHAPTER IV RESULTS, DISCUSSION, AND LIMITATIONS In this chapter, results of the statistical analyses of the data obtained in the investigation are presented. A discussion of those results and the limitations of the study are also included. The study was designed to investigate expectancy and performance scores of EH boys within success and failure conditions. Data obtained were from individual meetings with the boys during their regular resource room period. Measures obtained from the subjects included initial expec- tancy, specific expectancy for five trials on a chance task, perceived success or failure level, expectancy for a second task, and actual per- formance on the second task; each score obtained had a possible range of 1 to 10. The measures were self report forms and were recorded by the student by marking his response on a prepared sheet; this form was also used to give knowledge of results for the five trials of the chance task. Mean expectancy estimates for the second task and actual perform- ance on that task were dependent variables compared for success and failure students. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was obtained between expectancy and performance scores for success and failure groups separ- ately and combined. This was done to estimate the relationship between the variables within success and failure conditions. 32 33 Co r r e '[ a t ion Re s u H s_ The Pearson product-moment correlation between the dependent variables was obtained using the Statist ical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1970) correlation procedure. The coefficients for each group and the total sample between expectancy and performance scores were low (ii. ^.05). The hypothesis of no relationship between expectancy and performance scores for subjects in either the success or the failure group was retained. In order to compare expectancy estimates within both conditions, a t-test was utilized; in a similar fashion, an independent t-test was used to compare performance levels of the groups. Separate t-tests were selected rather than a multi-variate procedure because an analysis of the correlation coefficients between dependent variables indicated \ery little relationship in either condition. The high experiment-wise error rate commonly associated with univariate analysis of multi-variate data is minimized when intercorrelation of dependent variables approaches zero (Hummel & Sligo, 1971). If the variables are unrelated, the advan- tage of considering the means simultaneously is substantial. Although no correlation is indicated by the results, another factor may need to be considered. Assumptions of random, normal distribution among scores on expectancy and performance measure may have been skewed in opposite directions. Results of T-Tests Means and standard deviations for expectancy and performance levels on the matrix worksheet were computed; these values are contained in Table 3. No difference was indicated between success or failure subjects on expectancy for the matrix task (t (46} = 0.33,^> .05). The hypothesis of no differences in expectancy levels between subjects assigned to success and failure groups was retained. Performance means for the two groups were also compared; a signifi- cant difference (_t (23) = 2.28, p_ < .05) was indicated. The performance for the students receiving success was higher than for those who had received failure. The hypothesis of no difference in the performance sample means was rejected at the .05 level of confidence, Placement in a success or failure condition seemed to differentially effect performance on a subsequent level . Tabic 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Expectancy and Performance Scores of Success and Failure Groups SUCCESS FAILURE Expectancy 7=7.46 s=2.13 x=6.96 s=2.03 Performance x=4.29 s=3.14 r=0.10 x=2.25 s=3.06 r-0.13 Disc ussio n This study investigated the effects of success and failure on expectancy and performance of emotionally handicapped boys, and the relationship between that expectancy and subsequent performance. Demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar; that is, initial expectancy and math achievement did not differ. The racial (black/white) and grade (4th/5th) composition of the success and failure groups also were equivalent. The success group had a slightly larger percentage of fourth graders than the failure group, while the failure group had a slightly larger percentage of blacks than the success group. These differences were found to be nonsignificant when considered using a Chi -square procedure. Comparison of the perceived success or failure means of the two groups suggested that the feedback given on the first task was appropriately perceived. The fact that the expectancy esti- mates for the second task were somewhat lower than the initial expectancy estimates for t groups suggests that a partial control on wishful thinking may h; occurred during the latter estimate. The performance mean for the combined groups indicated that approximately three problems were correctly completed. This is lower than the score of six which was obtained by subjects used to test the matrix worksheet; however, no EH children were included in the pilot study. When considering the question of whether success or failure can affect expectancy estimates on the progressigve matrix, one cannot say that suc- cess would lead to significantly higher expectancies than failure (Jones, 1977). When considering the same question with regard to the effect of success and failure on performance on the progressive matrix, it seems that success leads to higher performance scores than failure (Griffth, 1977) 37 One possible explanation of why success and failure in the current study resulted in significant differences in performances and not in expectancy for a second task may be related to the manner in which attribution and perceived condition acted together. For those boys who had high initial expectancies in the success condition, the perceived successful performance on the first task may have been attributed to ability (Weiner, 1974). Attribution of success to ability would suggest that ability, which is relatively stable, may transfer to subsequent tasks; hence, a high performance on the second task (Freize & Weiner, 1971). For those boys who had low initial expectancies in the success condition, success was probably attributed to luck and the small number . of successes was probably not enough to raise expectancy for a new and unknown task. Although there was possible conservatism on the subsequent estimate, the thought of recent success may have encouraged concentration and work for another success. For those boys whose initial expectancies were high and then received failure, attribution to bad luck for the task would revive one's expectancies on a second task. When confronted with a difficult problem on the matrix worksheet, this boy might have chosen to see his performance on the second task as being affected by luck and consequently looked for a pattern to answering instead of spending time working the problems. For those students whose initial expectancy was low and received failure, they probably attributed failure to lack of ability, (Feather & Simon, 1971). Since the first task was a chance task and all students were told that the second task was different from the first, expectancies were not affected differentially because all subjects felt that a new chance for success was apparent. When actually confronted with 38 a seemingly difficult progressive matrix (performance mean of 3.26), the failure group probably exerted less effort because of the pervasive feeling of another possible failure. It should also be noted that most of the boys in this study held a high initial expectancy of success. Another possible explanation for the lower performance scores for failure subjects is that the presence of a difficult task after a failure would lead to a helpless feeling and what Seligman (1975) called a passive approach to learning. It was observed by the examiner that several of the failure subjects wanted to quit but after being reminded that a treat would be given for completion they continued. The resultant effort was seemingly directed towards completing the worksheet and not at correctly answering the items. The results obtained are limited in their general izability. Since only EH boys were used, decisions about how girls or children in other categories of exceptionality may have responded can not be made. Equally, the results are limited to settings and tasks similar to those used in the study. Because of the nature of the instrument used to obtain expectancy estimates, the results are also limited. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The emotionally handicapped (EH) child usually has a poor achieve- ment record despite having near normal intellectual abilities (Kelly, Bullock, & Dykes, 1974; Shea, 1978). The emotional problems associated with poor academic performance may also affect the child's ability to establish and maintain satisfactory relationships with peers and adults. The poor academic performance and/or inability to establish meaningful relationsnips with others generally leads the EH child to experience failure (L 'Connor, 1969; Shea, 1978). In order to provide additional assistance and support, most EH children receive some instructional time in a resource room setting where the teacher-pupil ratio is low and more personal attention is possible (O'Neall & Sibbison, 1975). Florida currently provides services to approximately 2% of its school population within programs for the emotionally handicapped. One factor which effects the performance of an individual is his expectancy of success for a task (Rotter, 1954). Expectancy can be des- cribed as the probability level one has for performance. When one is attempting a task in which he has experience, past success or failure at the task will have a major effect on expectancy and performance (Feather, 1966; Marks, 1951). If a task is novel, the expectancy is primarily determined by an individual's generalized expectancy (Jones, 1977); this generalized expectancy is considered to be a relatively stable global 39 40 assessment of one's chances of success in everyday situations (Feather, 1965; McCaughan, 1976). Rotter (1966) suggested that expectancy is modi- fiable by learning and experience. Most investigators have attempted to vary the success or failure rate on a task to manipulate expectancy levels. Success generally leads to an increase in expectancy of success; while failure generally leads to a decrease in expectancy of success. Feather (1968) gave college students 15 anagrams to solve. The first five anagrams were easy for half of the students and insoluble for the others. For all students the last ten anagrams were of the same difficulty. Students were asked to estimate their chances of solving each anagram just prior to attempting it. Expectancy estimates for those subjects who received initial anagrams of low difficulty increased until the last ten anagrams were incurred; expectancy estimates for those who received insoluble initial anagrams decreased continually until the last ten anagrams were attempted. Feather concluded that expectancy of success at a task is directly proportional to the objective probability of success for that task. Additionally, Marks (1951) and Jessor and Readio (1958) have shown that for most children a greater percentage of success experiences raises one's expectancy for success. Jones (1977) suggested that an individual is responsive to his past experiences with ? task or to information about the performance of others at a novel task. Feather and Saville (1967) found that expectancy of success decreased after failure, and that predominant failure produced more change in expectancies than predominant success; failure also led to a dislike for the task. Researchers investigating the effects of success and failure on expectancies of exceptional children take opposing viewpoints. Cromwell 41 (1963) and Zigler (1962) suggested that retarded individuals have an orientation to avoid failure, and that a history of failure would lead to this orientation. Initial expectancy estimates for the retarded popu- lations are usually lower than for normals. Shuster and Gruen (1971) and McMillan (1969) report that a history of failure is not as critical to expectancy as mental age (MA). Levy (1974) used knowledge of results to assist in expectancy and performance gains for the mildly retarded. Results of the numerous studies of expectancy levels in retarded individuals have shown that experimentally induced success coupled with knowledge of results can effect changes in expectancies of mildly retarded youth. Similar studies with other exceptional children are few in number; how- ever, reactions to success and failure by these subjects have always shown greater variability than in normal subjects. For instance, Harway (1962) found that physically handicapped children would set unrealistic goals despite repeated failure. Robbins and Harway (1977) found that learning disabled children showed greater variability in goal setting than a control group. No studies have been reported in which expectancy levels of emotionally handicapped children were investigated. While success and failure generally result in increases and decreases in subsequent expectancy and performance estimates, it is also important to consider the attributions one associates with the success or failure. The attributions commonly mentioned are (1) ability, (2) effort, (3) task difficulty, and (4) luck (Frieze & Weiner, 1971; Heider, 1958). If one attributes success or failure to luck, little or no rise in expectancy and performance is observed; however, success or failure attributed to ability has resulted in greater outcome variation. Numerous authors 42 have also reported that the primary variable which determines whether one attributes success or failure to ability or luck is their initial level of expectancy (Feather & Simon, 1971; Frieze & Weiner, 1971). When sub- jects attributed poor performance to lack of ability, later expectancy estimates tended to decrease. The opposite effect was seen when one attributed success to ability. McMillan (1969) found that retarded groups tended to attribute lack of ability to uncompleted tasks; this was not seen in the normal group. Griffith (1977) has shown that success coupled with an attribution of ability leads to a feeling of control over the outcome of a task. The same variables which have been shown to effect expectancies have also been shown to effect performance. For example, Feather and Simon (1971) and Frieze and Weiner (1971) found that those individuals whose initial expectancies were high tended to have higher performance scores. Griffith (1977) and Feather (1968) found that those subjects who were given success on preliminary anagrams had higher performance scores on subsequent anagrams than those who had been given failure. Success at one task has been shown to affect the level of aspiration and performance on subsequent tasks (Frank, 1935). It seems, then, that the effects of success and failure may be predictable within certain groups dependent upon the personal attribu- tion assigned to that success and/or failure and the nature of the task (i.e., novel or previously attempted) (Feather, 1968, Feather & Simon, 1971; Jones, 1977). Effective teaching practices have been developed by utilizing this knowledge in working with mildly retarded children (Mercer & Snell , 1977); however, little research of this nature has been completed with other categories of exceptional children. 43 Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of success and failure on the expectancies and performances of elementary EH children. Research efforts investigating expectancies of EH children have not been found. With the use of knowledge of results and a validity check for perceived treatment, the present study has attempted to improve upon the methodology previously used to study the effects of success and failure in exceptional children. Procedures Subjects The subjects included in the study were 48 Alachua County fourth and fifth grade EH boys randomly chosen from those receiving resource room assistance. The boys were randomly assigned to either a success or a failure condition. The black/white ratio of all students was 58%: 42%, and the ratio of 4th/5th graders was 60%: 40%. Math achievement scores were obtained for all subjects and the means for the two conditions were statistically similar (t=.01, p_ >.05). The race and grade compo- sition of the two groups was also equivalent (x^=.08, j) >.05 andx =.34, P >.05 respectively). Method Boys selected to participate were asked to complete two tasks. The first was a chance task and the second was a progressive matrix work- sheet (see Appendix C). The examiner obtained data during the last four weeks of school, and each child was seen individually. All children were told that they would receive a small treat for completion of the 44 two tasks. The student began by marking on a response sheet how well he expected to do on the upcoming two tasks. The students put an "x" on the face of the response sheet devised to record his expectancy (see Appendix B). Eight aces and eight deuces from two standard decks of cards were shown to the boys, and used for the first task. The examiner shuffled the cards and put ten face down in front of the boy. He then asked the child to guess what each card was (ace or deuce) and to guess how many of the ten he would guess correctly. Each boy was told that he should try to make his best guess. In other words, if he guessed two and actually identified eight correctly, he had missed by six and did not do well. An expectancy estimate was obtained just prior to each of the five trials on the first task. Feedback was given after each trial verbally and graphically (see Appendix B). Following the fifth trial and feedback, the boy was asked to mark how well he thought he actually did on the first task. For scores above five the boy was considered to have perceived success; while a score of five or lower meant that the boy perceived failure. Twenty-four randomly selected boys (n=48) were given feedback which would suggest success and the remainder received feedback which would suggest failure. A manipulation check was performed and greater than 95% of the boys accurately perceived the condition to which they had been assigned. Following the first task the boys were told that they would now attempt a different task (see Appendix A for correct wording) which was not like the first one. Each boy was asked to estimate how many of the ten items on the second task he thought he would get right. All children were given success feedback for the second task, and a treat 45 for completing the tasks. The examiner was not aware of the rationale or hypotheses for the study, but was told that the information obtained would be helpful in telling how EH children react to success and failure. The experimental procedure yielded expectancy and performance scores for the matrix task for boys who had received success or failure on a previous task. It was hypothesized that (1) there would be no relationship between expectancy levels obtained from students who received failure feedback on the preliminary guessing task, and their actual performance levels on the progressive matrix worksheet; (2) there would be no relationship between expectancy levels obtained from students who received success feedback on the preliminary guessing task, and their actual performance levels on the progressive matrix; (3) there would be no difference between mean scores of success and failure groups as measured by their progressive matrix scores; and (4) there would be no difference between the mean scores of success and failure groups as measured by their verbal reports of expectancy of success for the progressive matrix worksheet. Results With respect to the relationship between expectancy estimates and performance scores within the two conditions, little correlation was shown in either. For students in the success group, expectancy scores did not correlate with performance scores (,r=.10, ..p > .05) . A similar non-significant correlation (r=.!3, p >.05) was obtained when comparing expectancy estimates with performance scores within the failure group. With respect to the comparison of expectancy and performance means across the success and failure conditions, there were different results. 46 The t-test analysis showed that expectancy means across conditions did not differ significantly (t (46)=0.83, p_ >.05). When an independent t-test was performed comparing performance means, a significant differ- ence was noticed (t (46)=2.28, £ <C .05). The success group had similar expectancy means and a higher performance mean than the failure group. Discussion The relationship between expectancy and performance variables within treatment conditions was shown to be very low. Expectancy estimates did not seem to be correlated highly with subsequent performance for success and/or failure subjects. Since the dependent measures were seemingly unrelated, independent univariate t-tests were used to compare the expectancy and performance means across success and failure conditions. Although the expectancy mean for success subjects was higher than the expectancy mean for failure subjects, statistical significance was not present (see Table 3). Placement in the success condition did not lead to significantly higher expectancies. The performance mean for success subjects was significantly higher than the performance mean for failure subjects (see Table 3). Subjects who had received previous success performed better on the subsequent task than subjects who had previously received failure. One possible explanation for why sucesss effected higher performance scores and not higher expectancy estimates is that the nature of the first task, coupled with attributions for the condition acted together in the following manner: Subjects in the success condition with high initial expectancies saw their success as attributed to ability. Since 47 ability is usually stable, the boy probably would expect to do well on the second item and the experience of preliminary success would follow through to encourage the best performance possible even if the second task was difficult. For subjects with a low initial expectancy followed by success, the success was probably attributed to luck and subsequent expectancy estimates would remain high. When faced with the difficult matrix (x=3.24) task, the previous success would encourage the subject to try his best to obtain another success. For subjects with high initial expectancies and failure on the first task, failure was probably attributed to luck. The attribution to luck would only mini- mally affect expectancy; however, when faced with the difficult matrix, the thought of another possible failure may have caused the boy to treat the task as another chance task and look for a quick answer or to quit if no quick answer was evident. For subjects with low initial expectancy estimates and failure on the first task, the failure was probably attributed to lack of ability. Even though failure was per- ceived, the student was told that the second task was not like the first and, therefore, he might have felt that he had another chance. When faced with the difficult matrix worksheet, the subject probably felt as if another failure was imminent and put forth little effort in completion of the second task. It is interesting to note that there were only three boys with initial expectancies below five. One other possible explanation for a significant difference in performance means for the two groups is that those students who had received failure on the first task may have felt somewhat hopeless in performing accurately after viewing the matrix worksheet, and 48 exhibited what Seligman (1975) calls passive approach tc learning. This means that the child who receives enough failure will eventually foster a feeling of "what's the use in trying." This passive approach suggests that one is powerless to avoid failure and therefore leads the person to quit trying. It was observed that several of the sub- jects in the failure condition attempted a few problems on the matrix and wanted to quit. The examiner reminded these boys that a treat was given to those who completed the two tasks, and they did complete the worksheet. This effort was seen as directed at finishing and not necessarily towards solving the problems correctly. Conclusions Within the context of the present study, several conclusions seemed appropriate. First, elementary EH boys have high expectancies when con- fronted with novel tasks. This was consistent in this study for expec- tancies obtained for each of the two tasks. Second, expectancy was not highly related to performance. This seems to be the result of the novel nature of the second task as well as the actual performance required. Since the matrix task was difficult for children participating in the study, performance on this matrix seems to be better predicted by prior success or failure than by generalized expectancy. The EH boys in the study tended to have high expectancies. These expectancies were not seen as good predictors of the actual perform- ance; that is, thinking or feeling one would do well was not sufficient for actually doing well. Differences in performance were likely a function of a variable other than expectancy. Finally, experimentally induced success and failure seem to effect the performance of elementary EH boys. The children seemed to take a 49 different approach to the difficult learning task depending on prior success or failure; those boys who had previously received success seemed to approach the matrix worksheet with a desire to succeed again. Those students who previously received failure seemed to approach the task with high initial expectancies followed by a lack of effort when shown the difficult matrix worksheet. Findings derived from these data may have practical implications for others involved in either applied research or practice in this area. Implications for Research Analysis of the present results would suggest that further research is needed to clarify the role that attributions of success and failure play with EH children. Research is also needed which uses tasks which are typically found in resource rooms to check the effects of success and failure on performance. The effects of success and failure at academic tasks on performance would be valuable information for teachers of exceptional children. APPENDIX A Introductory Statement and Directions After the examiner has established at least a partial rapport with the student, the following paragraph was read to him: "We are going to try two tasks today. After you have completed both tasks you will receive a treat." The examiner then stated the introduction for the first task as follows: "I am giving these tasks to a lot of boys your age. Some of them are very good at this sort of thing, some are not particularly good. Here is a paper with a line of boys on it. As you see, here is the boy who does the very best on these tasks here at the top of the page. He is smiling. Here is the boy who does it the worst at the bottom. He is frowning. And these are all the boys in between (motioning) Now, before we start the tasks, put an X on the boy you think you will turn out to be when you get through." The examiner then stated the directions for the first task as follows: "Here are 16 cards. There are eight aces and eight deuces. I will shuffle them and put ten of them face down on the table. I want you to tell me what you think each card is and, finally, to guess how many will be right. You have done well if your guess is close to the number correct. You will not have done well if you miss by over two. For example, if you guess five and you actually got five then you have done well. If you guess two and actually get eight then your guess was not close and you have not done well." 50 51 The examiner made sure that the directions were repeated until the subject knew what he was to do. When the boy was ready, his expectancy of success was obtained for the first trial. The subject was given written and verbal feedback after each trial and was asked to guess the number of correct choices for the next trial. After the five trials, the examiner asked the student for his perceptions of his performance as follows: "Now that you have had a chance to actually try the task, please mark how well you think you actually did . Put an X on the boy that shows how you did." The examiner will introduce the second task as follows: "Now I would like you to try another task. This task is not like the first one and cards are not used. This task is new to you and you have never had to do it before. This task has ten parts. How many do you think you will get right?" The response was recorded and the progressive matrix scales was given to the student and no verbal directions were given except the following: "Put in the number which is missing. Here is an example. The number that is missing in the example is six. Now, you do the rest of these. Take your time; you have ten minutes to com- plete the problems. " After the student finished, he was given the treat. The examiner then scored the worksheet and gave success feedback to the student. APPENDIX B 52 APPENDIX C Example 1 2 3 4 5 7 36 38 40 42 44 48 5 14 23 32 41 59 47 45 43 41 39 35 54 47 40 33 26 12 87 76 1 1 65 54 43 21 26 ! 38 i 50 62 74 98 26 i 33 40 47 54 68 13 I 26 1 39 52 65 91 48 1 42 36 30 24 i 12 93 89 85 1 81 77 ! 69 53 APPENDIX D Failure-Success Response Sheet Those students who are randomly placed into the success group will be given feedback according to the following scale: If Subject Feedback Feedback Feedback Feedback Feedback Responds for for for for for Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 8 3 7 7 3 9 9 9 8 8 9 10 10 10 9 9 10 9 9 9 10 10 For the first three trials the examiner will say the following: "You did well on that one. You guessed and you got . You only missed by one." For the last two trials the examiner will say the following: "You did 'jery well on that one. You guessed and you got . You were exactly right." 54 55 Those students who are randomly placed into the failure group will be given feedback according to the following scale: If Subject Responds Feedback for Trial 1 Feedback for Trial 2 Feedback for Trial 3 Feedback for Trial 4 Feedback for Trial 5 1 5 5 5 6 6 2 6 6 5 7 7 3 7 7 7 3 8 4 S 8 3 9 9 5 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 1 1 7 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 4 4 3 3 9 5 5 5 4 4 10 5 6 6 5 5 For all trials the examiner will say the following: "You did not do well on that one. You guessed and you got . You missed by APPENDIX L DATA FOR SUBJEC TS ACHIEVEMENT INITIAL PERCEIVED MATRIX MATRIX GRADE EXPECTANCY S OR F EXPECTANCY PERFORMANCE EQUIVALENT 1 10 1 4 1 4.7 2 10 4 9 2 6.0 3 10 4 10 1 9.2 4 1 1 4 1 3.7 5 9 2 4 3 4.0 6 9 5 8 1 8.6 7 10 3 10 2 3.5 8 9 1 c 5 6 Q 9 9 4 8 2 4.0 10 9 5 7 3 3.8 11 1 4 8 4 3.9 12 10 1 10 3 3.7 13 9 3 6 2 4.4 14 10 4 9 1 2.9 15 10 4 6 3 5.2 16 10 2 6 3 3,3 17 9 5 8 3 4.1 IS 6 2 5 3 3.4 19 10 3 10 1 1.9 20 21 3 8 3 4 4 6 1 2 3-0 22 23 24 25 26 27 10 6 7 5 10 5 4 4 3 10 10 10 6 7 6 5 2 7 1 2 5 I 1 J' 3-6 4.9 4.4 4-2 2-2 5.3 28 6 6 8 3 3.9 29 1 10 10 1 4.0 30 10 10 10 1 4.4 31 9 7 7 2 3.9 32 33 10 6 7 9 10 8 1 6.0 4.9 34 10 9 9 8.2 35 8 10 7 2 5.2 36 9 10 8 1 5.0 37 10 10 10 3.4 38 39 10 7 7 10 6 6 1 1 5.0 3.6 40 9 8 8 1 4.2 41 7 7 8 5.1 42 43 10 10 7 10 4 10 2 ■ 2 5 3.7 44 6 9 7 1 3.7 45 46 8 10 9 8 10 5 1 1 7.0 3-1 4.2 47 10 10 8 1 48 8 8 6 5G 1 4.3 REFERENCES Algozzine, B.A. The emotionally disturbed child: Disturbed or dis- turbi ng . J ournal of A bnormal Child Psycho logy, 1977, 5 , 205-21 1 . Bower, E. Early identification of emoti onally handicapp ed children in school . Springfield, 111 .. Charles C. Thomas, 1960^ Bower, E. & Lambert, N. In-school screening of children with emotional handicaps. In N. Long, W. Morse, & R. Newman (Eds.), Conflict in the class room. Belmont, Cal.: Wadsworth, 1971. Bullock, L. M., & Brown, R. K. Research bulletin: Educational pro- visions for emotionally disturbe d chi1dr^^_A_sj^t^^^nrt" Gainesville: Florida Educational Research and Devel"opment Council, 1972. Chapman, D. W., & Volkman, J. A social determinant of the level of aspiration. J ournal o f Abnormal and Social Psycholoov. 1 Q 39 34 225-233. " ~ — ~ J — ' — Crandall, V. C. Reinforcement effects of adult reactions and non- reactions on children's achievement expectations. Child Developmen- 1963, 34, 335-354. Cromwell, R. L. A social learning approach to mental retardation. In N . R . Ellis ( Ed . ) , Handbook of mental deficiency . New York : McGraw-Hill, 1963. Cromwell, R. L., & Moss, J. W. The influence of reward value on the stated expectancies of mentally retarded patients. American Journal of Mental Deficien cy, 1959, 6_l, 557-661. Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. Peab ody Individual Achievem ent Test. St. Paul: American Guidance" Service, 1970. Feather, N. T. The relationship of expectation to success to need achievement and test anxiety. J ournal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 118-126. " Feather, N. T. Effects of prior success and failure on expectations of success and subsequent performance. Journal on Personality an d Social Ps ychology, 1966, 3, 287-293." ~~ Feather, N. T. Change in confidence following success or failure as a predictor of subsequent performance. Journa l of Personality a nd Social Psycholo gy, 1968, 9, 38-45. " ~ ~ 57 Feather, N. T., & Saville, M. R. Effects of amount of prior success and failure on expectations of success and subsequent task per- formance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1967, 5_, 226-232. Feather, N. T. , & Simon, J. G. Attribution of responsibility and valence of outcome in relation to initial confidence and success and failure of self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1971, ]8_, 173-788"! Feather, N. T., & Simon, J. G. Fear of success and causal attribution for outcome. Journal of Personality , 1973, 41_, 495-542. Festinger, L. Wish expectation and group standards as factors influencing level of aspiration. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 1942, 37, 184-200. * ^ — Florida Department of Education. A resource manual for the development and evaluation of special programs for exceptional students : Emotionally handicapped . Tallahassee: Author, 1977. Frank, J. D. Individual differences in certain aspects of level of aspiration. American Journal of Psychology , 1935, 47, 119-128. Frieze, I., & Weiner, B. Cue utilization and attributional judgments for success and failure. Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 591-605. — Gewirtz, H. B. Generalizations of children's preferences as a function of reinforcement and task similarity. Journal of Abnormal a nd Social Psychology , 1960, 58, 111-118. ~ Griffith, M. Effects of noncontingent success and failure on mood and performance. Journal of Personality , 1977, 45, 442-457. Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. Categories, labels, behavioral characteristics: ED, LD, and EMR reconsidered. Journal of Special Education , 1977, ]J_, 139-149. Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. Expectional children: Introduction to special education . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978. Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relation s. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. Hummel, T. J., & Sligo, J. R. Empirical comparison of univariate and univariate analysis of variance procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76 (1), 49-57. 58 Jassor , R & Readio J. The influence of the value of an event upon f957:i! ta 2 ^ 2 28. US ° CCUrrenCe - ^^^^en^lj^o^, J ° neS pJi J: ^fulfilling Bnmhgjnes Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Earl Baum Associates, 1977. Lawrence Kauffman, J. N. Characteristi cs of children', behav ior disorders Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, 1977. ui: > Qraer s . Kelly T. J Bullock, L. M. , 4 Dykes, M. K. Researc h bulletin- Perceptions of behavior, ! disorders in ch jTdriH mM$\ 1 e ■ Monba hducati onal Research Development Counci l, fg74 K1rk, Mifnin t - E |S"" nq eXCeptl0nal ^"^n. Boston: Houghton Levy, J. Social reinforcement and knowledge of results as determinant of motor performance among EMR children. AmeHca Journal of Mental Deficiency . 1974, 78, 752-758. 0T L ° Cke or E qoai Jt°tlZnV° ? ] eff * ct /° f knowled 9* of results: Knowledge or goal setting? Journal of Applied Psychology . 1967, 5]_, 324-329. McMillan, D. L. Motivational differences: Cultural familial retardates VS i M n0 : m ,\ S, i bjectS on expectancy for failure. Amer can Journaf of Mental Deficiency . 1969, 74, 254-258. Journal MarkS nn R ; h W ' Jheeffect of Probability, desirability, and "privilege" ?951 ll 33 e 2-3 e 51 PeCtatl '° nS ° f Ch11dren - '°"™aTl of Personality 6 McCaughan, L R. Performance as a function of attribution expectancy and achievemenTl p ^iti^T- induced by two 1* ^% %^^ ' duTTn 1 jMnnn fl _of a nov el motor task . llnnnhh.h.H T.VS™" dissertaion, Florida State University, 1976. a °ctoral MerCe reta C rdati'on Sn ?Ini- M \ E - L ^ning theory research <„ mM ^ retardation: Implications tor teaching . mi,,mh„c. y&PnT, Neisworth J T. , & Greer, J. G. Functional similarities of learning 42 (I)!' 17-21 ^tardatlon. Exceptional Children . 1975? Nie, H N., Hull, C H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. , & Bent, D H Statistical packag e fo r the social sciences . Mew York: McGraw^ ' O'Connor R. D. Modification of social withdrawal through symbolic deling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis . 1969, 1 15-22. 59 O'Neal 1 , L. R., & Sibbison, V. Needs assessment of programs for Florida's exceptional students . Gainesville, Fla.: Institute for the Develop- ment of Human Resources, 1975. Piper, T. J. Effect of reward value on the expectancy of an event in EMR subjects. American Journal of Ment al Deficiency, 1970, 74, 537-540. ~ Reinert, H. R. Children in conflict: Educational strategies for the emotionally disturbed and behaviorally disorde red. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1976. Robbins, R. L., & Harraway, N. I. Goal setting and reactions to success and failure in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 1977, 10_ (6), 356-362. Robinson, N. M., & Robinson, H. B. The mentally ret arded child. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Rosen, M. , Diggory, J. C, & Werlinsky, B. E. Goal setting and expectancy of success in institutionalized and noninstitutional ized mental sub- normals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency , 1966, 71_, 249-255. Rotter, J. B. Social learning and clinical psych ology. New York: Prentice Hall, 1954. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Mono graphs, 1966, 30, (Whole No. 609). — — Sears, P. S. Levels of aspiration in academically successful and unsuc- cessful children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1940, 35, 498-536. Seligman, M. E. Helplessness: On depression development and death . San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Shea, T. M. Teaching children and youth with behavior disorders . St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1973. Shuster, S. 0., & Gruen, G. E. Success and failure as determinants of the performance prediction of mentally retarded and nonretarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency , 1971, 76, 190-196. Weiner, B. Cognitive views of human motivation . New York: Academic Press, 1974. Zigler, E. Social deprivation in familial and organic retardates. Psychological Reports , 1962, ]0_, 370. Zigler, E. Familial retardation: A continuing dilemma. Science, 1967, 155, 292-298. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tom Ball owe was born in 1947 in Paducah, Kentucky. He attended the Paducah public schools and graduated in 1965 from Paducah Tilghman High School . Mr. Ballowe received a bachelor of science degree in Physical Education and Psychology from Western Kentucky University in 1970. A major area of interest for Mr. Ballowe was college athletics; he participated in football, track, and gymnastics. Mr. Ballowe was awarded a Master's in Educational Psychology at the University of Florida in 1972. In 1977, he received an Educational Specialist's Degree in School Psychology. Mr. Ballowe has worked in a variety of settings with exceptional children, adolescents, and adults. He has taught in the public schools worked in a mental health center, served as a school psychologist, and directed an alternative school and counseling center. In 1976, Mr. Ballowe was wed to the former Debra Diann Turley in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The Ballowe's recently celebrated the birth of a lovely daughter named Jessie Kyle Ballowe. Mr. Ballowe has recently accepted a position as an assistant pro- fessor of special education at Winthrop College in Rock Hill, South Carolina. 60 I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (Ur Robert Algozzine, Chairman j Assistant Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Rex K Schmid Assistant Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. kM^ILAk 'Ul William B. Ware Professor of Foundations of Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. C^M & '^.-r-d Cecil D. Mercer Associate Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. flames e. Whorton ' . \ « Associate Professor of Special Education 'As, This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Special Education in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as parital fulfillment of the require- ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1978 /eiuuTlSLSfiffll liiiii"